Sunday, May 15, 2005

Shoot the Messenger!

The Globe & Mail has three pieces about Stephen Harper and his 'temper'. Mr. Harper and the not nice politics of rage care of Margaret Wente, Come on Stephen, would it hurt you to smile? by Jeffrey Simpson, and Is Tory Leader justifiably hot at Liberals, or just too angry? from Gloria Galloway.

As a group they suggest Harper's "recent outbursts" threaten to turn off voters. Last year Harper was accused of having no passion, and now they accuse him of being too passionate? Go figure.

Galloway says that Paul Martin "has his own legendary bad temper. He blows up at staff members he deems to be underperforming. But his outbursts happen behind closed doors. Mr. Harper's vexation has been public." In Galloway's red world, Martin's duplicitous nature is something to be admired, and Harper's honest reactions are not.

Harper has displayed the courage and ability to explain his anger, calmly, if passionately. Quoting Oliver Cromwell and Friedrich Nietzsche when venting frustration at the government's disregard for the will of the House, can hardly be considered 'outbursts'.

Conversely, Paul Martin relies on pre-recording, or on a script to organize 'his' thoughts prior to commenting on anything -- otherwise he bumbles and fumbles or hands-off questions to the Minister of Public Works. Why doesn't Paul Martin take his own questions in Question Period? He hasn't bought the answers.

The Globe is focussing on the Stephen Harper's 'anger' rather than the government's refusal to work within the conventions of the House.

While Harper's reaction might 'turn off' Canadians -- Martin's make-it-up-as-you-go-along tactics should have us burning up.

What accounts for the apathy of the average person at the utter contempt this Liberal government has shown for democracy and for the Canadian people. Where is the outrage?

Have we become so inured to Liberal abuses of power and the betrayal of public trust, that we vilify those who confront them?

It has become leftist-chic not to question the governing elite. It's trendy to spout derisive comments about those who challenge the status quo.

How dare the opposition actually oppose the Liberal Party? We've been so used to one-party rule and a fractured opposition, seeing the opposition standing up to the Liberal Party is more disconcerting than the Liberal Party imposing its will on the House.

How dare the opposition refuse to vote for a budget they don't believe in? It doesn't matter that the Conservatives said they would never vote for this budget, the Liberal Party says it is good for the people. Whichever incarnation they present to the house, the Conservatives are 'harming the people' if they don't vote for it. Just ask the Toronto Star & the Globe.

How dare the opposition accuse the Liberal Party of using nefarious tactics to gain advantage in the vote? In the askance world of Canadian politics it is far worse to rightly accuse the Liberal Party of using dirty schemes, than it is for the Party to employ dirty schemes.

- Howard Zinn, author/historian said: "If those in charge of our society - politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television - can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves."

And so we do.

Cheers,
canadianna


6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not really a fan of Nietzsche but here's some quotes that apply to the Canadian Political landscape as it were.

The General voter - 'Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.'

Paul Martin and the famous "look at my record" rhetoric - 'Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.'

Les
thecomputergeeks.ca

The Tiger said...

Zinn? You're quoting Zinn?!

Canadi-anna said...

It doesn't matter whether someone is on the left or right of the political spectrum. What he said is correct. He is applying it as he perceives it from where he is, and I am applying it here because it fits.
I attributed it, only because I thought it wrong to quote someone without doing so. Do you think it's author discredits its sentiments? (I really want to know if it makes a difference, because if it does, I won't quote a radical leftist in future.)
Cheers

The Tiger said...

Quote whomever you like -- I just found it funny. :-) And yes, attributions are important.

Anonymous said...

I checked the oracle of google and I'm quoting Nietzsche as far as I know :D

And the quote Harper used was...

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster." - or a garbled version of it at any rate ;)

Les
www.thecomputergeeks.ca

bob said...

Well spoken, Canadianna. At times, friends, there isn't a helluva lot of difference between what the far left and far right perceive as the problem. The difference, of course, lies in the solutions of choice. A wise statement is a wise statement, no matter the beliefs of its speaker.
Cheers in return.